Shri Atul Kumar Goswami, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Kanpur

ITA 363/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7611 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.363/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.363/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SHRI ATUL KUMAR GOSWAMI, PROP. HYTECH INDUSTRIES, NO. 548, 4 TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA NAGAR, 14 TH CROSS BUS STOP, BANGALORE. VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE-5, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-1, KANPUR DATED 05/01/2018 PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012- 2013. 2. AT THE THRESHOLD WE NOTED THAT WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. WE FIND THAT PR OPER NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. ALKA SINGH (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING 23 / 04 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 / 04 /201 9 I.T.A. NO.363/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 2 DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE P LACE RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON P ROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE ACT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE SO DESIRES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/04/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:23/04/2019 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR